Civilization VI

[Spinach]

You've told me many times that removal of doomstacking and changing the hexes are the exact reasons you think 5 sucks though.

We've gone through this song and dance like three or four times.

[SeiKeo]

And you think that's plenty the same thing as some kind of Neanderthal emotional attachment to a large number on one tile so hell I don't know.

[2Bad]

Yeah vanilla was a rough fucking ride but once they got those expansions layered on things settled in. The larger strategic element I'd say is probably still better in 4 but the tactical part is INFINITELY better in 5.



and both of them have their lunch completely eaten by Vicky, CK, and EU.

and HOI, I guess

[Five_X]

lol

This looks like Age of Empires Online, hah.

[Arha]

I don't miss doomstacks at all, so Civ5 felt like a really solid improvement to me once I'd gotten the expansions.

[aldeayeah]

That yellow-bordered civ is quite multicultural.

[SeiKeo]

Yeah vanilla was a rough fucking ride but once they got those expansions layered on things settled in. The larger strategic element I'd say is probably still better in 4 but the tactical part is INFINITELY better in 5.

this is literally the entire point, if you want a tactical game play total war. it doesn't make sense as a complex system in civ for a number of reasons.

[Cruor]

Yeah vanilla was a rough fucking ride but once they got those expansions layered on things settled in. The larger strategic element I'd say is probably still better in 4 but the tactical part is INFINITELY better in 5.



and both of them have their lunch completely eaten by Vicky, CK, and EU.

and HOI, I guess

technically all those games are also ruled by doomstacks

especially in online

(except HoI3<3)

[2Bad]

if you want a tactical game play total war

no that's if I want to play a bad RTS

strategywise I guess it really lives at about the same elevation as Civ these days

[Cruor]

no that's if I want to play a bad RTS

strategywise I guess it really lives at about the same elevation as Civ these days

You can play TW without actually doing the RTS and play it just like the board games everyone loves too.

[2Bad]

Yeah but then you're at the mercy of autocalc which is even worse.

[Marmadillo]

Autocalc is bad if you're facing full stacks of heavy infantry. Otherwise they're okay.

[Cruor]

Yeah but then you're at the mercy of autocalc which is even worse.

what is the 3x dice rolls in paradox

[2Bad]

Paradox combat is fine for what it is because the rest of the game is infinitely more robust than anything Firaxis or CA has ever put out.

[SeiKeo]

well civ 4 is probably better designed than either vicky 2 or eu4

[Seika]

I don't miss doomstacks at all, so Civ5 felt like a really solid improvement to me once I'd gotten the expansions.

Okay but can Paradox make a game that isn't just an atlas glued to a spreadsheet at some point?

Proper opinions.

I mean Civ V was perfectly fine, people just demand more from their strategy than Civ can provide anymore

'Can' is a huge stretch, and even 'will' is likely taking it too far. Yes, Paradox has made big gains among the large-scale strategy community, but Civ is one of the franchises that has strong casual recognition and appeal. There are tonnes of players who only know about and care about Civ in this genre, and they (for the most part) rarely demand more from Firaxis. They care about stability, fun, and some gradual gameplay upgrades. Great depth and innovation aren't actually on the menu. Paradox's reach in that direction is still, I feel, fairly limited.

[2Bad]

Well yes if we take casuals into consideration then less does tend to become more.

[Cruor]

Paradox combat is fine for what it is because the rest of the game is infinitely more robust than anything Firaxis or CA has ever put out.

Oh, I agree it is fine, but I'd def argue both historically (what a lot of people like to claim it is) and designwise it ends up being lacking because there's so many directions Paraducks tries to push it.

To argue that it is more detailed and that makes it great, is just hollow. I'd argue the combat system is relatively simple when you learn how it works in each of Paradox's games. And heck nevermind the bugs that plague its combat system (AA ground units in HoI are infamous for literally doing nothing or the infamous Fire stage bugs in EU just off the top of my head).

well civ 4 is probably better designed than either vicky 2 or eu4

While I agree with this, I doubt its in the same tread.

Civ's design is very closed and is actually balanced so any Empire is mad fun no matter what you do, while in say Vicky or HoI they are very much not equal (though EU has been trying to make it 'BALANCED'). Hence why I would call it far more thought out and designed.

TW balance wise is also p interesting but I feel it flat as TW ultimately only wants you to conquer the world and doesn't care as much about trade. Also Rome II, Sengoku, and definitely Attila are moving along the lines of EU4 and just trying to BALANCE everything even when the fun of some things is that they are not balanced and unfairness is fun.

Can I shamelessly plug in that I OLEV March of the Eagle balance, especially in MP? Even if it combat wise it is a piece of shit where your only goal is to stack units with Guards and just enough cavalry and artillery to fill lines and spam Up the Guard tactics- strategic wise it is just amazing to watch/play a team deathmatch where your goal is to win before all your units die of attrition, while the other side only condition is to STAY AWAY FROM NAPOLEON AND ATTACK ANYTHING ELSE AS NAPOLEON WILL FUCK YOUR SHIT AND HE MOVES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It makes things so stressful.

Well yes if we take casuals into consideration then less does tend to become more.

Isn't that the point of this convo though, that you claimed the direction of the people playing these kinds of games was moving toward grand strategy to get their fix as it was more detailed?

I don't think that is exactly true, while I would argue CK being the major exception, I do think there is a limit even if this is true. I mean despite me and Leo being die hard gsg fans for years we still wouldn't even touch War in the Pacific (well, I touched it, but I stopped after I realized I had no idea how to even disembark units).

Civ 5 had 50-60k players regularly at any time of day (peak times it was even higher) till like early 2015 while every single Paradox game combined was still averaged like 10-15k players at any time of day. Civ has a far better grasp on the strategy game community.

[Spinach]

I can't understand the insistence on making the Firaxis/Paradox comparison here unless you want to make it about Stellaris since it's actually 4x like Civ. Otherwise these games just play completely differently.

And if you want Better Civ there's Endless Legend anyway.

[Cruor]

I can't understand the insistence on making the Firaxis/Paradox comparison here unless you want to make it about Stellaris since it's actually 4x like Civ. Otherwise these games just play completely differently.

And if you want Better Civ there's Endless Legend anyway.

yeah, this is kinda what I was trying to go for, but since it was an argument I had to actually back it up!

Endless Legend doesn't have historical husbandos and waifus though